Mehul S/O Shri Amulakh Bhai Thakkar vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Mehul and Amulakh Bhai Thakkar, sought to quash FIR No. 05/2019 registered with the Government Railway Police (GRP), Ajmer, for an offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated. They stated that a co-accused received stolen gold articles, reshaped them into biscuits, and sold them to the petitioner. The petitioners asserted they were unaware the gold was stolen and purchased it after making payment to the shopkeeper, providing a GST retail invoice as supporting evidence. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposed the petition.
Held
The Court held that if the contents of an FIR reveal the commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court cannot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This task is assigned to the Investigating Officer. The Court noted that the petitioner was at liberty to submit supporting documents and representations to the Investigating Officer. If such a representation is filed, the Investigating Officer is expected to consider it and submit the investigation's conclusion or report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to the competent court. If a charge-sheet has already been filed, the petitioner can raise all defence grounds before the Trial Court. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the GST invoice or their knowledge of the stolen property.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can adjudicate the correctness of allegations in an FIR when it reveals the commission of a cognizable offence? The petitioner argued that the GST retail invoice demonstrated a bonafide purchase, implying lack of knowledge that the gold was stolen, and therefore the FIR should be quashed. The State contended that the correctness of allegations in an FIR, when a cognizable offence is disclosed, cannot be decided by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and is a matter for the Investigating Officer.
Sections Cited
Section 482 Cr.P.C., Section 173 Cr.P.C., Section 380 IPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 12/03/2026
The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned FIR No.05/2019 registered with the Police Station Chittorgarh Government Railway Police (GRP), Ajmer for the offence under Section 380 IPC.
The contents of the instant criminal misc. petition indicates that the petitioner has been falsely booked in the instant case. It has been stated in the petition that the co-accused received stolen gold articles from the other co-accused, then he changed the shape of the said stolen gold articles in the form of biscuit and sold the same to the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware that the aforesaid gold articles were a stolen property and he purchased the same by making payment to the shopkeeper.
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-2955/2021]
In support of his contention, he has placed on record the GST retail invoice, hence, a prayer has been sought to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid impugned FIR.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made in the instant petition.
It is settled proposition of law that if the contents of the F.I.R. reveals commission of a cognizable offence, then the correctness of the allegations cannot be adjudicated by this Court by invoking inherent juri iction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Certainly, it is a task assigned to the Investigating Officer.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to submit the documents in support of his contentions before the Investigating Officer by way of filing representation and in case, such representation is submitted by the petitioner in support of his documents, it is expected from the Investigating Officer to look into the same and submit the conclusion of the investigation/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Competent Court of law and in case the charge-sheet has already been submitted after investigation, then the petitioner would be at liberty to take all the defence/grounds before the Trial Court, which have been taken before this Court at appropriate stage of the trial.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/11
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.